...just two starstruck women sympathetic to WikiLeaks' cause — one of whom was a longtime activist and even a part of an organization that arranged one of his talks, and thus obviously not a CIA "sparrow".

Would this have been able to happen without Sweden's strange "rape" laws? No, probably not. Would the case have received as much attention from authorities if it was an ordinary person? Again, perhaps not, but that's the price of fame and notoriety: famous and well-known people often get different treatment — and what treatment they do get garners massive news coverage.

There have been no charges for rape in Sweden as far as I'm aware, but still that's what all newspapers are touting. I guess it's possible that they used that for the interpol request as it was the closest available option though...

See, that's the thing, I've heard conflicting "reports"...I've heard reports say that he savagely molested and raped two women, I've heard reports that they both decided to file against him once they both existed, I've heard "rape" in Sweden is not wearing a condom...

I don't think anyone in the public knows the full, true story. Hopefully, we will, but as of right now, I don't think anyone does.

Read the story that OP posted. It agrees with the other stories I just read. It's not rape at all, what a bunch of BS. Every time I heard it before I was wondering if either it was the CIA or whoever trying to get him, or him taking advantage of his position, but it just sounds like he's a womaniser. He had consensual sex with 2 women, who are now complaining he didn't use a condom, which is apparently illegal in Sweden, but it's hardy rape by most people's definition. The charges have obviously been used as an excuse to try to catch the guy though, it's all very dodgy and basically wouldn't have happened to anyone else.

When in Rome! You have to deal with the laws where you reside. Placing your culture's more's on another culture is one of the things that causes such strife in the world. Sweden is a country with the laws created by their people - not American laws.

Interpol didn't give him the highest possible priority, the just put him on their wanted list. He is by no means on top of that list, he is just there amongst ~160 others. That list is publicly available [interpol.int]. That what interpol does when a participation police force sends a request, nothing more, nothing less. The media made him the number one person on the list. He also isn't convicted, just wanted. And as the interpol site states he "should be considered innocent until proven guilty." [interpol.int]

Assange also went to Scotland Yard himself, so it's not like they went on a big hunt to track him down. It's again only a big show in the media, not anywhere else.
The next thing will be for the UK to decide whether they will send him to Sweden, before they do they will check whether the charges against him make sense and whether he can expect a decent trial. Once they've done that he will be send to Sweden and be heard by the policy first. After hearing both parties in the case they might still decide not to pursue it any further, but even when they do he will get a proper trial in Sweden and if he didn't do anything wrong he doesn't have much to fear.

To be fair, they issued a red notice, which is odd given that the crime he is charged with is actually not a crime in most other states. And it's not like he was fleeing justice: the charges have been twice brought before a judge and dropped. All in all, it seems strange to me the zeal with which he is being pursued

Why is a red notice odd in this case? It simply means they want him extradited. There are two types of red notices, those for people already convicted and those for people wanted for a trail (possibly just as a witness). The notice for for Assange is of the latter type. It's a 'red' notice because they extradited to Sweden, the other colors are reserved for information requests and missing persons. The types of notices are publicly documented [interpol.int] as well.

The next thing will be for the UK to decide whether they will send him to Sweden, before they do they will check whether the charges against him make sense and whether he can expect a decent trial. Once they've done that he will be send to Sweden and be heard by the policy first.

Too bad he's not a murderous dictator. Then the British authorities would refuse to extradite him for "humanitarian reasons". I suspect the treatment will be far less humanitarian this time.

All of what you say is true, and you've laid it out in perhaps the clearest and most rational way I've seen. But you do miss out a few of the other facts.

The man is wanted for questioning for a relatively minor personal crime against two people. Why, then, have Visa and MasterCard refused to do business with the (still completely legal, as far as I'm aware) website for whom he acts as a spokesperson? Why have bank accounts been frozen? Why have PayPal cut off their account? Why have their web hosts and DNS provider given them the cold shoulder? Why do leading US politicians advocate cold blooded murder by government troops? Why are US legislators promising to change the law to make his journalistic, first amendment protected actions retroactively against the law?

It all seems very out of proportion for a journalist who may or may not have committed some minor personal crime.

If I were the subject of such focused vitriol, I'd be nervous about being in custody too.

It is never good to treat others badly. Their was evidence that O.J. Simpson was guilty, however there is evidence that the police planted evidence, likely due to his fame. He, nor the public received a fair trial.

Ridiculous laws are ridiculous. Face it: Law does not reflect the actual public opinion or values. Since its hard to remove old laws it's easy for the past to hold us prisoners. This is why we should only pass those laws that we really must have forever.

The problem with the Texas law is that it requires "the average person" to apply their own "standards" (read: right wing christians dictate what's decent; Clearly a loophole bypassing Church/State separation).

IMO, non enforcement should be grounds for removal. The Swedish law of latter day rape is largely unenforced as well.

If the governments actually actively and aggressively enforced all the laws of the lands, laws like these would be much easier to overturn.

Unfortunately, law making branches are there to make new laws, they can't be bothered to audit the old ones -- If there are no lobbyists against the old laws, they stay on the books.

How to create a Police State:

1. Create laws that no one obeys.2. Do not enforce said laws.3. Wait for someone to do something you don't like.4. Toss them in jail for breaking one of the laws you don't normally enforce.5. Oppress!

The charges have obviously been used as an excuse to try to catch the guy though, it's all very dodgy and basically wouldn't have happened to anyone else.

Actually, it is probable that if he was an unknown, once he was outside of Sweden, the authorities would have left it on the backburner. Yes, the warrant would have been issued by the Swedish authorities, but they probably would not have gotten an Interpol warrant and if they did, the authorities in other countries would probably only enforced it if he was picked up for some other reason. However, anyone with the level of fame/notoriety that Assange has would have seen the same process followed. Whether or not they were picked up on the warrant would have depended on the nature of their fame/whether or not the authorities local to where they were had some personal grudge against them or not.

He had consensual sex with 2 women, who are now complaining he didn't use a condom, which is apparently illegal in Sweden, but it's hardy rape by most people's definition.

Nonsense. Having consensual sex without a condom is hardly illegal in Sweden or any other civilized country for that matter. From what I gather, the condom actually broke during intercourse with one of the women and Mr Assange was asked to stop, and he didn't. Yeah, that's at least called sexual assault in Sweden, and since it's no longer consensual I can't really see what else it would be called.

Of course, what really happened between them is only known by Julian Assange and the two women. Let's not judge anyone just yet.

Consent in law is a very complicated subject in law. Depending on circumstances the withdrawal of consent for a activity that is in-progress may be void. For example, if you consent to be operated on but your anaesthetic wore off and woke up, you cannot suddenly withdraw consent.

On the other hand, private activities between consenting adults may be deemed to be against the public good and the consent found to be void. See the case of R v Brown.

The idea of consent being a legal defence, or if it actually negates the actus reus is often debated subject in law. There is more to it than just, "was there consent?", which is what people here seem to be so preoccupied with. The lack of quality in the Slashdot army of armchair legal scholars is a bit disappointing.

Still, if you support a noble case for years, have enough of a crush on your boss to go to bed with him, and then use Interpol to drag him from a foreign country, endangering the whole case you were after, and possibly landing him in prison and as result shutting down the whole operation FOR HIM NOT WEARING A CONDOM while having sex with you, then either your dedication for the case is not as deep as you claim, or there was some seriously foul play somewhere here.

He had consensual sex with 2 women, who are now complaining he didn't use a condom, which is apparently illegal in Sweden, but it's hardy rape by most people's definition.

Actually, according to an editorial penned by Assange's lawyer last week, he started having sex with each woman with a condom on, with their consent. At some point, the condom either came off or broke. The women then withdrew consent, appealing to him to stop. Assange did not stop.

That certainly isn't in the referenced article - where do you find that she appealed to him to stop and he did not?

According to accounts the women gave to the police and friends, they each had consensual sexual encounters with Mr. Assange that became nonconsensual. One woman said that Mr. Assange had ignored her appeals to stop after a condom broke. The other woman said that she and Mr. Assange had begun a sexual encounter using a condom, but that Mr. Assange did not comply with her appeals to stop when it was no longer in use.

And yes, it's rape in Sweden if a women withdraws her consent and the man doesn't stop.

It'll be interesting to see what happens once the details become known to the general international public, about the "broken" condom (which according to one of the women had a lot of help from Assange's fingernail to break) followed by an alleged attempt to or success in continuing without consent. Will more women step forward, either corroborating the Swedish women's stories or his character?I.e. is this smoke with fire, or a smokescreen?

Yeh, if he's maintaining that story in court he's going straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Normally non-consensual but nonviolent rape is not something you get convicted for because it's effectively impossible to prove and when it's just word vs word then you're forced to assume innocence(Much to many feminists dismay). But if the perpetrator admits the woman actually did say 'Stop' then Swedish law is extremely clear and it counts as rape.

The story certainly is more complicated than that. Especially with the women continuing a positive relation with him for several days, and the alleged tweets that happened after the fact.

But it gets more tricky. Sweden reports four times as many rapes (per capita) as other european countries. This is not because they actually happen, but because of the way the law treats and counts those. Basically, swedish rape laws are weird. You can be charged for raping someone who explicitly and repeatedly said "yes" and never once "no", due to a construct of "power difference" that voids their consent. That is one of the attack angles the prosecution is using in this case. Another example is that the girl can call in the next day and call it rape if she was really drunk. She can claim she was too drunk to know what she was doing, again voiding the consent even if it was explicitly given (and let's face it, how often does that occur? In most ONS you never really ask the question, or if you do you don't record the answer, it just happens if both parties want it). So a voided consent means no consent and sex without consent equals rape. Whoops. You fucked a girl who went with you all the way, enjoyed it a ton, even encouraged you - and the next day you're a rapist because she had a few drinks and now regrets it.

Don't get me wrong, rapists are right up there with child molesters, torturers and priests in my personal list of highly despicable people. But there is a huge difference between a guy who grabs a woman from the street, rips off her clothes and forces his dick into her while she's struggling for her life - and a guy who doesn't notice that the woman has had a few too many and may think differently in the morning.

You are right that Sweden is a bit different on rape-charges, but what you have explained here is as far as I known only the law in Norway. And even though it is the codified law, the supreme court in Norway has refused to convict anyone based on it, due to lack of evidence. Essential the court has set a sensible minimum amount of proof that makes the application of the "involuntary rape"-law impossible (the involuntary rape thing is intended to mirror involuntary manslaughter)

Actually, according to an editorial penned by Assange's lawyer last week, he started having sex with each woman with a condom on, with their consent. At some point, the condom either came off or broke.

That interpretation contradicts the factual record. The article made it very clear that a condom was not even used in the second liaison with Jessica, therefore it would have been impossible for it to "come off or break."

From my reading of the article, it appears that consent wasn't actually withdrawn until the two women found out about each other. When Assange's 40-something feminist activist lover discovered that Assange had some enjoyed a hot 20-something piece of ass on the side, then both the encounters retroactively became "rape".

Have you ever heard a woman say "no don't stop" because when its said and whats happening can be two totally different things. Granted they should use a little less ambiguous wording, but I've had people say that to me and not mean they wanted me to quit, but wanted me to not quit.

But ONLY if slot B gives consent for penetration by tab A, and then ONLY if the tab is well covered by the rubber tab protector, AND if tab A is not grossly oversized for slot B, And certainly not if Tab A has been previously inserted into slot C without tab A's knowing about it, regardless of the use of the rubber tab protector's employment.

Tricky as the charges were not filed until days later and then dropped and then refiled, one would suspect under outside influence. It is likely that extradition will fail due to lack of evidence and a period of expressed consent, no charge filed for a period after the activity, one days and the other over a week.

This seems more like an attempt to further tie up the issue of wikileaks. Julian needs to take a step back from wikileaks allow others to run it in the interim and to take then pressure of himself.

The principle is, Julian did not release the information, the person who obtained chose to release it via wikileaks and that wikileaks simply made the resource available. He has put himself under the gun by excessively putting himself in the spotlight and not publicly sharing the management and responsibility of wikileaks around.

Well considering they just robbed him of the money he would need to defend himself how EXACTLY is supposed to "fight the charges"? I don't know how it is in Sweden but here in the USA if you don't have money for a lawyer you get a "public pretender" which last I looked the odds of conviction with a public pretender is something like 98%. Hell you got better odds of winning $1000 with a scratch off ticket than winning with a public pretender.

Lets be honest here folks: the second he pissed of the PTB his ass was grass. Threatening to release all those banker records just sped up the time table, that's all. Hell look at how quick our MSM like CNN tripped all over themselves to practically label the guy an enemy combatant. The days of Woodward and Bernstein are long gone and instead what we have is puppets of the powerful in its place. Honestly it doesn't even matter if the guy is guilty or not, they will keep his ass tied up in court for the next decade or so, while making damned sure he has no access to any way he could communicate that password on that encrypted "insurance file" he released not too long ago. They will make sure he can't raise a penny for defense, any lawyer that touches him will be investigated, basically his life will be made an example of what happens when you fuck with the money men.

You can call me paranoid ALL you want, but what we are seeing is propaganda in action. Just look at how many here without knowing the facts assume he is guilty? Notice how damned near ALL the MSM has done NOTHING but talk about what an irresponsible evil bastard he is? You tell people a lie long enough it becomes truth, it is just that simple. They will make damned sure for the next decade ALL you hear is "alleged rapist" before his name, while downplaying Wikileaks or acting like it is a terrorist organization. Sadly the PTBs have turned propaganda into a way of life.Just look at how few of the public had a fit about the republicans cheering for shooting down tax breaks for those making less than a million a year? That is the power of propaganda, and Assange is about to find out about it the hard way. If he was cleared of all charges tomorrow they'd just say "formerly accused of rape". And if the fact that they sent Interpol for a "he said/she said" AND froze all his money doesn't convince you, nothing will.

Yeah, it just doesn't add up. First he gets charged, then he doesn't. Then he gets permission to leave, then they charge him again, send out a warrent of the highest possible order for his arrest, for something they would never do that for if it was anyone else, then they fuck that warrant up, then he just calmly tells the English police 'look I'm staying at this address', then they issue another warrant, then the English police *don't* pick him up immediately (even though the priority of the warrant would warrant it) and then he has to just walk into a police station himself.

"The Daily Mail want us to be scared of everything - even the weather. Remember when it snowed? SNOW, there is SNOW! Immigrant snow! Immigrant, gypsy snow! Immigrant, gypsy, pedophile snow! Don't make a snowman, or it will come into your house and fuck you." -Russell Brand

Hah. That's nothing. Here in the US, it never snows anymore. It's always called a SNOW STORM, no matter what the wind speed and precipitation is.No, I'm not kidding. Sensationalism has made it into the common language.

...just two starstruck women sympathetic to WikiLeaks' cause -- one of whom was a longtime activist and even a part of an organization that arranged one of his talks, and thus obviously not a CIA "sparrow".

Given the misteps with blogs and tweets that both women made, I doubt they're anyone's sparrows, but it's worth noting here that being a longtime activist would be good cover for an agent. Plenty of opportunity to travel and you don't have to explain why you don't have a real job.

Earlier this year, Sarah is reported to have posted a telling entry on her website, which she has since removed. But a copy has been retrieved and widely circulated on the internet.Entitled ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge’, it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.Step 7 says: ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’ (The highlighting of text is Sarah’s own.)

Consider very carefully if you really must take revenge.It is almost always better to forgive than to avenge . . .

Step 2Think about why you want revenge. You need to be clear about who to take revenge on, as well as why. Revenge is never directed against only one person, but also the actions of the person.

Step 3The principle of proportionality.Remember that revenge will not only match the deed in size but also in nature.A good revenge is linked to what has been done against you.

For example if you want revenge on someone who cheated or who dumped you, you should use a punishment with dating/sex/fidelity involved.

Step 4Do a brainstorm of appropriate measures for the category of revenge you’re after. To continue the example above, you can sabotage your victim’s current relationship, such as getting his new partner to be unfaithful or ensure that he gets a madman after him.

Use your imagination!

Step 5Figure out how you can systematically take revenge.Send your victim a series of letters and photographs that make your victim’s new partner believe that you are still together which is better than to tell just one big lie on one single occasion

Step 6Rank your systematic revenge schemes from low to high in terms of likely success, required input from you, and degree of satisfaction when you succeed.The ideal, of course, is a revenge as strong as possible but this requires a lot of hard work and effort for it to turn out exactly as you want it to.

Step 7Get to work.And remember what your goals are while you are operating, ensure that your victim will suffer the same way as he made you suffer.

Personally, I'm very, very bored of the whole "story" by now but you're quoting SERIOUSLY deficient "sources" and also assume (I have no idea if it's true in this case) that people are uncorruptable or can't start one thing in public while having an ulterior motive contrary to that. Also - read the damn article you cite - there are a million and one pointers in even that unresearched, rumour-ridden heap of journalistic crap to find at least 20 alibis and explanations that clear the guy, but somehow a court ends up issuing an international arrest warrant in full public view during the middle of a PR crisis? Somehow, that seems unlikely unless there is a factor pushing that. Stupidity is the usual explanation for anything in government, but it's not the only one.

I don't care if there is or isn't an inter-government conspiracy to get this guy - it wouldn't really surprise me either way. I don't care if he's arrested, deported, charged or not. What worries me more is that the US aren't hideously embarrassed and resolving to tighten things up on their end but instead out to quell a single proponent of the discovered material. "Our systems failed and this guy got hold of it - I know, let's threaten to kill this guy and / or make his life hell!" not "Okay, let's fix this system".

Yet again, the US shows that it can't be seen as "wrong", only other people/countries are ever wrong. These were supposedly private communique that were intercepted, stored, disseminated and publicised on every country's national TV networks - by a PRIVATE in their army. Says a lot for the US military / diplomacy process and the other militaries working alongside them - to me, it's just a warning not to deal with or trust the US military until they've cleaned their act up. To them, it's a case of making some Australian "freedom" nutter out to be public enemy No 2 (behind that other bloke that they never caught / can't prove is dead).

(P.S. I find *every* single piece of leaked material entirely boring, uninteresting and unsurprising. Hell, I was expecting something *juicy* to come out of that lot and there was absolutely nothing. I'd be shocked if that's *all* my military had to hide, and I'd be embarrassed for them if anything *juicy* had actually come out. The US's reaction has made this a news story, not anything posted on the website in question)

What worries me more is that the US aren't hideously embarrassed and resolving to tighten things up on their end but instead out to quell a single proponent of the discovered material. "Our systems failed and this guy got hold of it - I know, let's threaten to kill this guy and / or make his life hell!" not "Okay, let's fix this system".

I know many have stated this below, but I'm going to say it one more time because it needs to be rammed home in no uncertain terms.

The Daily Mail is a right wing propaganda machine. It is not to be trusted as a source of unbiased information.

If you want the flip side of the coin, go read The Guardian articles. They are predominantly left wing, and you should be able to extrapolate a happy middle ground. Either way, citing The Daily M^HFail as a credible source just makes you look like an idiot to any and all of the reasonable British public.

Or if you want a less biased approach, go read the Independent, because right wingers who read something in it they don't like call it left wing, and left wingers who read something in it they don't like call it right wing, which means it probably is in fact quite Independent as it's name suggests although it's generally referred to as centre-left so probably does have somewhat of a left wing slant to be fair. It does have the advantage at least of being able to lay claim as the only paper to have not backed any political party last election though.

That said, it's probably a bit unfair to class The Guardian as an opposite to the Daily Mail, on the right wing/left wing scale the Daily Mail is about 100 miles right, and The Guardian about 10cm left in comparison. So although The Guardian is certainly left wing, it's not far enough along the scale that you can't get sense out of it most the time, which of course can't be said for The Daily Mail, which is almost always wrong. If you try and extrapolate the middle ground from those two, due to The Daily Mails extreme right wing swing, your opinion will probably still end up predominantly right wing. If you want a true equal and opposite counter to the Daily Mail then the Daily Mirror is your best bet (which makes it's name quite apt).

This said, whilst reading both The Daily Mail and The Daily Mirror should in theory allow you to extrapolate a middle ground, in practice reading these two publications will almost certainly kill your brain. The effect of reading these two papers could only I imagine turn you into a lazy layabout tramp who thinks the world owes him enough welfare to become a millionaire, whilst simultaneously blaming immigrants and gypsys and Europe for his current situation.

Actually, no, it doesn't make it seem less likely that US intelligence agencies aren't behind this. If not US intelligence, at least US politics. Not only does this situation mirror the early law enforcement actions against thepiratebay.org (in that despite any evidence of any Swedish laws being broken) political leaders had directed law enforcement to perform the acts they did. The same occurred in the Assange case where the law enforcement officials decided there wasn't a case and the issue was closed. It was re-opened at the direction of a Swedish political leader. In the former case, it was shown that the Swedish politician had contact with US politicians. I would be unsurprised to learn that something similar had happened in the Assange case.

That Interpol is involved in this extremely weak case indicates further that some "powerful people" are directing this to happen.

This is indeed a dirty tricks campaign. The sordid details spell it out pretty clearly. There is very little that is random about what has been happening. The only person who wasn't "in control" of this situation has been Assange. He should have been watching himself -- it's not like he didn't know what he was up against... he's the face of Wikileaks!

Assange's actions provide aid and comfort to terrorists. He has, therefore, committed treason against those who oppose terrorism.

Emotive, but completely wrong. Polito-grade bullshit, in fact. You cannot commit "treason" against someone to whom you have no allegiance. He may have embarrassed organizations who claim to oppose terrorism, but guess what: even in the US, that isn't a crime.

He's also breached the sanctity of diplomatic communications and compromised the US' intelligence-gathering capability, having, just as one example, released a cable that contains more than enough information to identify an Iranian intelligence source.

"Sanctity of diplomatic communications?" Are you shitting me? Congratulations, you've managed to find an abuse of the word "sanctity" even MORE utterly ridiculous than "sanctity of marriage."

Bottom line: Assange is an enemy of humanity and I hope he's made an example of so that others who are thinking of following in his footsteps think again.

Bottom line: Subjugated lapdogs like yourself are enemies of humanity and I hope your made an example of so maybe people will stop with the bullshit "bend over and take it" attitude.

This [woai.com] is getting pretty damn close to blackmail if its not already...

But Hrafnsson also said the group had no plans at the moment to release the key to a heavily encrypted version of some of its most important documents -- an "insurance" file that has been distributed to supporters in case of an emergency. Hrafnsson said that will only come into play if "grave matters" involvingWikiLeaks staff occur -- but did not elaborate on what those would be.

Mistaking incompetence for evil is a common mistake. Politicians are often incompetent (true they are also often evil, but that is not the point). The CIA doesn't have to be involved for some politician to have reasons to take the guy down. It might be as simple as a craving public attention. Or it might even be a someone that thinks that, according to the intent of their laws, that not stopping when the condom breaks is rape.

a MORONIC interpretation of the law was made, saying that 'not stopping after a condom broke is rape'.

What's your agenda, exactly, that you're deliberately mis-representing what's been said/reported? It's not that not stopping after a condom breaks is rape in Sweden, it's that not stopping after the woman says "stop!" that matters. Nobody invented that on the fly just for fun.

that article is from the 19th of November. Things have moved faster than you know.

Stephens, told AOL News today that Swedish prosecutors told him that Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called "sex by surprise," which he said involves a fine of 5,000 kronor or about $715.

***

"We don't even know what 'sex by surprise' even means, and they haven't told us," Stephens said, just hours after Sweden's Supreme Court rejected Assange's bid to prevent an arrest order from being issued against him on allegations of sex crimes.

Had submitter even bothered to read articles he has linked to? Government has not 'confiscated' Assange's money. Bank closed his account, but Julian is free to pick up his money and make deposit in another bank.

The poster worded it poorly, but the affect was the same. Why did the bank chose to review his account right at this second? Government pressure. They were also all well aware that he wouldn't be able to come and pick up the money.

And, with what I assure you is no humor, I hope on behalf of all honest human beings, lovers of justice, haters of sniveling cowards, and believers in justice and truth whatever brand it carries, that what is in that file hurts the fuck out of the liars and thieves that stand in places of power.

"The Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit confirmed at 10.30am London time (2030 AEDT) that the 39-year-old Australian had been arrested “by appointment” on a European Arrest Warrant an hour earlier."
Seems that he turned himself in, so not sure the insurance file key would be released. Mind you his threat to do that if he was arrested (I don't think he specified for a particular reason) seemed a bit off.

Lets not forget (in the future) that searching for "Wikileaks" on Google takes you to 213.251.145.96
Google is US company, just like eBay/PayPal or Amazon. So, no excuse any more for those "low-abiding" dickheads.

Women from all the world celebrate that they can now compalin to the interpol if their lovers choose to use no condom with the security that they will chase him with full resources in all the brave new world.

If you value democracy then you should understand that the backlash from the WL episode will be a push for laws and technology to control communications at the direct expense of democratic ideals which require free speech. Anonymity and secure peer-to-peer communications, already at risk, will be further threatened under the premise of terrorism. If you want to help ensure that democracy prevails in the face of reactionary politics, then run a TOR server ( http://www.torproject.org/ [torproject.org] ) now, and consider any of these alternatives [reddit.com].

1) It weren't centralized. Tor can be taken down with coordinated action against its auth servers by a handful of governments.2) It was faster. Tor was basically only intended for web pages, and simple ones at that. It chokes on large multimedia stuff.3) It weren't anti-P2P... which should be a big no-no in any activists book.4) It could offer some kind of automatic redundancy/mirroring.

Tor is starting to look antiquated / inadequate because it was designed based on assumptions from 1999.

I suggest you try I2P at the link below where you can get access to anything Wikileaks has published, anonymously and relatively quickly.

The actions of MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon etc. are examples of the privatization of the suppression of dissent. The US, British, and French governments have been unable to legally do anything about Wikileaks and are likely to be unable to anything legally, because they have not committed a crime. The publication of leaked documents is not a crime. Instead like incarceration, many military and police operations, and security, suppression of undesirable information has been privatized. These companies have taken it upon themselves to enforce the new corporate order. Right now this suits the governments program, maybe later it won't.

Did you notice that to make sure no one saw the story, they even made sure the arrest took place on the SAME DAY as the launch of WoW Cataclysm? That's how bad they wanted this one to fly under the radar.

Assange is an Aussie, and probably turned himself in (yes, that's right, he turned himself in) to British authorities so he could expect acceptable treatment while extradition to Sweden for trial was being arranged. Assange faces real charges in Sweden, and has the expectation of a trial and judges and testimony and everything, charges that will take time to resolve and during which time he will receive humane treatment under a country that still respects the spirit of the Geneva Convention and other humane-treatment conventions.

The longer he can make it take to deal with those charges, the longer he can avoid a quiet US extraction to Gitmo where he can look forward to fun activities like being stacked naked with other men and waterboarding while the US delays his trial until after he's disclosed his sources under torture, then the US can make a big show of pardoning him in the name of freedom once Blackwater has taken out the sources of the leak, because Assange himself is not a threat.

It's also possible that he's hoping that his extradition from Britain to Sweden somehow makes it difficult or politically inexpedient to extradite him to the US once his trial (and possible incarceration) in Sweden are resolved. The extradition terms from Sweden to the US may not include some of the new terrorism "soft charges" that only require the US get their hands on someone, not that there be an actual crime committed or charges made or a trial or expectation of humane treatment or any of that inconvenient nonsense. The addition of an extradition from Britain to Sweden may add complexity to the subsequent negotiations for extradition from Sweden to the United States.

At worst, he's buying time until the US gets their hands on him. At best, he's avoiding the possibility altogether.

He's Australian. He is in Britain. In general, we don't waterboard our prisoners or humiliate them while they are in prison without trial for YEARS after their initial arrest (how many people still in that "US prison" abroad?) so he was able to hand himself in in the knowledge that we would require certain things of the Swedish government (an EU member) in their handling of him. Also, because he *was* in Britain and because he has deliberately made himself known to the authorities ever since arriving, when an international arrest warrant comes through from a friendly EU country with good human rights record we are absolutely legally obliged to follow it to the letter - so much so that we sent the last one back that they sent the UK police the other week because it wasn't filled in properly.

It doesn't matter *his* nationality. He's afforded no special favours just because he's from Australia, we have no particular agreements with Australia except for the standard ones - an EU citizen would have twice as many rights, for instance. But equally we can't hide him either because another respected country that has signed many binding agreements with us as part of the EU has now correctly and legally asked for his extradition on charges entirely unrelated to UK law at all, for an alleged crime that's happened on Swedish soil that isn't subject to UK law and for which the correct and legal court and extradition processes have now been followed. It doesn't matter if he was done for stealing a penny sweet or murdering thousands - we can only do what the law says we can (unlike some countries that like to conveniently rewrite or ignore their own laws at will and apply them retroactively - that's aimed at BOTH the US and Sweden).

The UK? We really don't care. The US is a supposed ally, sure, but the EU is too and we have *much* more in the way of binding agreements to them (plus they live next door and give us most of our electricity). We've pretty much stayed out of this whole embarrassment because it's just hilarious that a private in an army can cause so much embarrassment (mainly through the US's own reaction to the event, which would have been out of the news within a couple of days in the UK if it wasn't for the US constantly blathering about it) for supposedly the world's most powerful country. So to us, it's a question of who ticks all the paperwork boxes first, and the Swedish did so (on their second attempt) so they get him - if he was an EU citizen, it would be pretty much the same but there'd probably be more paperwork (e.g. he could be tried in the UK under Swedish law). The US would have had a MUCH more difficult time justifying his extradition to the US for any reason whatsoever but the Swedish have (for all we know) valid reasons, complete paperwork, a working legal system, and only judicial intent at heart. They also have pretty much the same laws as us with regards to treating him well, or passing him on to other authorities who might not.

Some countries abide by their laws, even if that means having to draft a couple of dubious ones first. You can always challenge a law that's unfair, but ignoring it is as good as breaking it. The US would be well put to remember such things in the future.

What is immoral is transgression: when you go against the wishes of your sexual partner.

In the West, you can live the most debauched sexual life you want, without judgment, as long as anyone partaking of that lifestyle with you does so as a freely consenting equal adult. The principle concepts here are freedom and equality between the sexes. But as soon as you do something with someone by force, you are a criminal. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction here, as long as you understand the most important principles in play.

Meanwhile, it seems to many of us in the West that in the Muslim world (as well as in the conservative Jewish or fundamentalist Christian worlds as well) women are forced into lives by conservative religious and cultural teachings that are very much about coercion and force about how to behave, including violent punishments for choosing their own path. Therefore, we in the West view these conservative religious and cultural teachings as far more immoral than the most debauched orgy. Because we don't view the expression of simple natural human sexuality as a crime. But we view force and transgression against the notion of equality and freedom as a crime.

Women don't seem to be treated as equals by conservative religious and cultural teachings emanating from the traditional religious conservative societies in the Muslim world (or traditional Christian or Jewish worlds). This is immoral. These cultural and religious teachings to us are a form of transgression, in which the woman is not seen as an equal. And therefore, according to a morality that values freedom and equality, conservative Muslim, Christian, and Jewish teachings are immoral, where they devalue the lives and freedom of women.

Human sexuality is not a crime. Forcing someone to do something and not treating them as an equal is a a crime. In this regard, the way the conservative religious world (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) treats woman is the real crime, and a woman in the West enjoying her completely natural sexuality is not in any way whatsoever criminal. Nor is there any logic whereby a woman or a man enjoying their natural sexuality is a crime.

So I ask you to stop judging human sexuality, and start judging the use of force against women into roles they did not choose of their own free will. In order to be a more moral person.

That's an artifact of how Swedish law works. He's not "åtalad", but he's "häktad" in relation to the crimes of one count of rape, one count of sexual assault, and two counts of sexual misconduct.I.e. he's arrested, but not in the US TV show sense where you have to be charged with a crime before you can get arrested."Investigative detainment for named crimes" would probably be the best translation.